contemporainfandomcom_fr-20200216-history
Discussion utilisateur:Sannse
Thanks (GFDL issue) Thanks for your clarifications, I'm trying to lead them to reason since weeks and the only thanks I had was being blocked on several usernames. I hope they will be more clever in the future, and that I will not have to warn you again (maybe with a different username, who knows ?). --PETite fleur 21 mai 2008 à 23:25 (UTC) GFDL et wikipedia Le modele http://fr.contemporain.wikia.com/wiki/Mod%C3%A8le:Originewikipedia repond a la question filmcultes 27 mai 2008 à 11:30 (UTC) :Réponse à Discussion_Utilisateur:Filmcultes#GDFL -- sannse (talk) 27 mai 2008 à 13:56 (UTC) Hi Sannse, thanks for your input. I am a user at wikipedia-fr. There is still a little problem since the page has been removed from Wikipedia, so the list of authors is not availble to the reader. I have now asked Filmcultes that the list of authors be mentioned or at least linked to, as per the GFDL and proposed to Filmcultes that we add the list of original authors in the discussion page, as not doing so infringes on the GFDL and the GFDL is the only way that wikia (or anyone) could redistribute the content. I am still waiting for Filmcultes' reply. Vege102 27 mai 2008 à 14:23 (UTC) :Réponse à Discussion_Utilisateur:Vege102 -- sannse (talk) 28 mai 2008 à 19:54 (UTC) ::# Sannse, you can talk to me directly, by using my mail ::# Nobody here answer to Vege 102 because he is a lyer: he presents himself firt as an administrator of WP (on my PdD), then here as a user, and we all know he is a vandal and "faux nez" soon bloked here under many identities (Krrt, Foulish, Petite fleur, etc): he is a vandal who has disturb this wiki since two months and he never contributed, he is here only to disclaim the author Franck Laroze as he did on wikipédia. That's why anyone listen to his bullshits. Ok ? --Kontrattak 28 mai 2008 à 23:43 (UTC) :::# Vege 102, this lyer, doesn't say I have completly rewritten this article since it was imported (by another person) on this wiki :::# How can he affirm I am this "Kccc": always the same methods of diffamations from this person, that's why nobody believe him here... He is a little bit "crazy" --Kontrattak 28 mai 2008 à 23:52 (UTC) ::::Hi Kontrattak, mostly I haven't needed to :) except the time I posted on Filmcultes' page instead of yours by mistake - sorry about that! Rewriting is, of course, another thing that means that a Wikipedia notice isn't needed, so all sounds fine there. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 29 mai 2008 à 11:03 (UTC) : Hi again Sannse! that's fine with me. Then maybe we could use a "wikipedia-deleted" template instead of the "normal" wikipedia template. We won't have to mention the history of revisions since Kccc=Kontrattak. With my best, user Vege102 29 mai 2008 à 09:57 (UTC) :: Hi Kontrattak, please stop being rude or saying things like "you're a lyer". I've always been very polite, and that's the way you should be in a collaborative encyclopaedia. The text on Wikia has large portions of it taken from the the article that was on Wikipedia (as the text says). So it's under GFDL, and if you're not Kccc, then we need to credit Kccc as well. Vege102 29 mai 2008 à 12:50 (UTC) ::If Kontrattak holds the copyright, via rewriting or if he was the original author (although I understand he says not for the second) then no template is needed. So it seems the matter is settled -- sannse (talk) 29 mai 2008 à 11:03 (UTC) ::: The © holds to Kccc, the original Wikipedia author, for most of the text. Since this is GFDL and Kontrattak is not Kccc, that means we should credit him. Vege102 29 mai 2008 à 12:51 (UTC) ::::Unless Kontrattak has rewritten it to an extent that it can be considered a new document (with or without information from the original... information cannot be copyrighted). Kontrattak says he has done this, and I'm content with that explanation -- sannse (talk) 29 mai 2008 à 16:34 (UTC) ::::: Checking from the deleted WP version, I can't find any difference with the first version posted on this wiki. The current version on wikia is almost identical to that version as well. Proof is here (this is a copy of the article that was on Wikipedia, from an internet blogger). Vege102 29 mai 2008 à 20:00 (UTC) ::::::I'm sorry, there is no way for me to mediate this. I can't see the original text in question (the text being on a blog doesn't help either way), so have no way of looking to see who is right here. But if Kccc is the copyright holder, then he is welcome to contact Wikia more officially. -- sannse (talk) 29 mai 2008 à 20:24 (UTC) ::::::: Sorry to bother you again, but here is a link to an old 2006 copy of the page http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franck_Laroze, from the internet archive. As you may see, the whole text has a lot of similarities with what is on wikia, for instance the first sentence. I can not reasonably have tampered with the archive.org copy, so that should show (with minimal doubt) that wikia used wikipedia's copy. All I'm asking is that the list of original authors be mentioned (or the most important ones), which shouldn't be a problem for wikia. Hope we'll settle this matter. Vege102 29 mai 2008 à 22:56 (UTC) :::::::: You bother everyone: no claim from wikipédia, so go back to your home. Your way to insist is VERY SUSPECT, and your example is an evidence (read all the old article) that I rewrotte it. Be happy not to be yet block, as the other identities you use. You are a lyer and really a little bit "crazy": go back to hospital. And never write again on my pages. @ Sannse: this Vege 102 is "Krrt", a personnal ennemy of F. Laroze on wikipédia, he's completly mad, insist since 2 months, and was punished on wikipedia for that... So, donn(t believ him: nobody here listen to him...--Kontrattak 29 mai 2008 à 23:17 (UTC) ::::::::: The GFDL problem has been added to the GFDL violation page on Wipiedia-fr. Then admin Bapti wrote here that he added the list of authors on wikia, so that the GFDL is respected. This can be seen here (same user on wikia). I think we should restore this. User Kontrattak keeps removing the credit, while it's a requirement of the GFDL ("the most important authors must be credited"). The wikia article is a word-by-word copy of the WP article. PS: I am not an ennemy of anyone, despite all the things that user Kontrattak reports on me. If he contacted you by email (?), that's probably so that I can't infirm what he says. Vege102 30 mai 2008 à 07:24 (UTC) I call to your attention that I'm being routinely insulted by user Kontrattak (who calls me a "mental deficient"), while up to now, I've mostly ignored his insults. : Thanks for the Internet Archive link Vege102, that's useful. It's very hard for me to compare two articles in a language I don't understand, but it looks to me as though the significant information is that the Wikia article is roughly four times as long as the Wikipedia one, and that much of the similar content is lists of works (remember, facts such as those are generally not covered by copyright). I see similarities in the organisation of the articles, and in some sentences, but I also see that it does appear to have been significantly re-written. :Kontrattak, please do not insult other users. "Go back to hospital" and so on are offensive and unhelpful comments, please leave them out of the discussion. On the attribution, I don't see the harm in adding a list of Wikipedia nicknames to the talk page - whether they are actually required or not. I suggest it as because it really doesn't harm or affect his wiki to have such a list. However, I still have no clear knowledge that it is required, so I only ask (not demand) that you do this as a courtesy to our Wikipedian neighbours. :Vege102, I don't really understand why you are pursuing this. You say you believe that Kccc is Kontrattak, in which case it seems that no attribution is required. If it is required, then Kccc as the copyright holder is the one who needs to be contacting us. This does feel more like a personal disagreement than anything else. I ask that you now leave the matter to any who claim copyright for themselves: that is, Kontrattak (if he holds the copyright) and Kccc and any other Wikipedia authors with such a claim. :I have replied to Bapti via email, and asked them to look at this page for the discussion. Thank you. -- sannse (talk) 30 mai 2008 à 15:04 (UTC) ::@Sannse:1) Look here and here and you will understand why I'm exceedeed by Vege 102 who disturb us since 2 months under different identitites, only because he as a personnal problem with the author F. Laroze: he contributes to make erase this article from wikipedia. He commited a lot of vandalisms here and that's mostly why Filmcultes or Greyman don't want to speak more with him. He was soon blocked under these other identitites by Greyman: ask to him ! Vege 102 can say what he wants to infirm : we recognize his style and his way to insist. He's always getting on our nerves for no matter. So, sorry for this sentence, but this man has really a mental problem, I repeat it. 2) You see yourself I rewrotte this article, so I refuse to make pleasure to wikipedia neighbours which covered themselves of shame by supressing this article about this great french writter and artist: they must firt respect this artist, by example by mentionning his name as author in books still mentionned on wikipedia. That's why I refuse, for the last time. As you say, the only other personn who can ask something is Kccc who wrotte the firts versions on wikipédia: search and ask to him/her, but I doubt he/she's still on wikis after what wikipédia did to her/his work... But for me, it's definitly no. --Kontrattak 31 mai 2008 à 01:12 (UTC) Hi again Sannse. I am not any of the other pseudos mentioned above (nothing to do with Foulish or other people, it must be the 100th time I'm saying that). The only reason I pursued this is for the principle, I make sure that the GFDL is respected on other websites, and I think it should be no problem for a "sister" website like wikia to follow the GFDL. Any admin at Wikipedia-fr should be able to tell you that the latest copy of the article "Franck Laroze" at Wikipedia-fr is nearly identical as the first one that was posted on wikia (thus also showing that in fact Kontrattak is the one lying all along, and not me as he claims). The link I provided earlier is from an external blog that I'm not controlling, from February 11, 2008 as written on the page, which is much earlier than the first version of the page on wikia (March 24 2008). There is little chance that I've invented all of these pages with false dates just to prove my claim. If Wikia credits the major authors of the original page, then all is fine by my side. Thanks and have a nice day. Vege102 31 mai 2008 à 11:54 (UTC) :Of course Wikia respects the GDFL and our neighbours at Wikipedia-fr (which is not our sister project, that's a specific term that Wikimedia only applies to wikis within the Foundation. I wouldn't want to upset people by claiming that status for Wikia :) But in this individual case the situation is unclear, and so I leave it to the copyright holder to contact us, and those involved here to respect each other and find a compromise. That is where this ends. -- sannse (talk) 2 juin 2008 à 08:44 (UTC) : Correct attribution to the original authors, have now been added to a subpage of the Franck Laroze article, by Filmcultes (admin of this wiki), and the page is protected. So everything is fine as far as I'm concerned. Vege102 2 juin 2008 à 11:13 (UTC)